toryleadership

Q12: Leadership Election Process

"Do you support grassroots Conservative Party members retaining a vote in the final stage of future leadership elections?"

David Cameron: “Yes. I favour an electoral college system, but frankly feel that we have spent enough time in recent months discussing this issue. So I can’t promise that this will be the first act of a Cameron-led Conservative Party!”

David Davis: “It’s very important that a party that preaches about localism and accountability is seen to put those beliefs into practice in the way it selects its leader.  There may be problems with the current system, but the answer is not to take the vote away from the membership but to come up with a solution that takes into account the views of all sections of the Party. I have suggested flipping the current system round as an alternative, but there are strong arguments for an electoral college.  Generally, I believe we must be seen to be as open and democratic as possible. These are principles that must guide how we select our candidates as well as our leaders.”

Editor's Comment: "A scoop to end the day!  I don't believe that DC has - until now - declared his position on the leadership process.  It's good that he's in favour of members retaining a vote in the final stage of future leadership elections.  It's a shame he didn't declare this view earlier and we might have been able to mount a more comprehensive defeat of Michael Howard's attempts to roll back party democracy.  I don't much like the idea of an electoral college.  It's not as open as what we have and goes against the one-member-one-vote principle.  Ideally we'd be moving towards Theresa May's open primaries.  Interesting to see DD now saying that an electoral college might be as good as 'flipping the process'.  The Hague flip would give MPs the final say.  With DC enjoying majority support of MPs it's, perhaps, not surprising that Mr Davis no longer has such a high view of his colleagues' views!  The Dave-O-Meter goes to bed showing this question drawn.  Both want democracy retained.  The flipping idea is less attractive than an electoral college but at least DD declared during the fight over the right of members to elect the party leader.  In any case it has to be hoped that we won't be electing another leader for many years..."

That was the final question and the final answers.  I hope you know more than you did at 9am about the candidates... and my biases.  I tried to pose questions that hadn't been asked elsewhere.  I'm only sorry Woman's Hour's 'briefs or boxers' question trumped all of mine!

Q11: Open primaries

"Would you support an open primary-style election for selecting the Conservative Party’s next London mayoral candidate?"

David Cameron: “This is a very interesting idea and I would be happy to consider it.”

David Davis: “I am not convinced that the primary system will be as effective in Britain as it is in America, but I believe the Party membership should have a decisive say, just as they have done in this leadership election.“

Editor's Comment: "Regular readers of this site will know that I share the enthusiasm of Daniel Hannan MEP for open primary elections.  I think they are an excellent way of connecting the Conservative Party with new supporters.  DC is hardly committed to the idea but he's at least open-minded.  With leading party democracy campaigners such as Michael Ancram, Michael Gove, John Hayes, Theresa May and Ed Vaizey on DC's leadership team I hope that that open-mindedness will translate into something firm.  DD's answer is honest and direct but still disappointing."

Q10: Technology or Kyoto?

"When it comes to climate change are you more inclined to support the Asian Pacific Partnership on Clean Development’s emphasis on technology or the approach of the Kyoto Treaty?"

David Cameron: “I don’t see these as alternatives. What we need is a new emphasis on technology which will help us move to a low-carbon world, and a framework of market incentives to bring forward the least-cost, most environmentally sensitive solutions. We do need an international agreement that goes beyond Kyoto and involves all industrialised and industrialising countries, and I’ve made clear my ambition for Britain to show real international leadership on this issue. But we can only do that if we ourselves become a low-carbon economy, and to that end I have set out a long-term strategy for carbon reduction including a new cross-party commission on energy and the environment, a new statutory framework for carbon reduction, and an independent monitoring and forecasting body, a Carbon Audit Office.”

David Davis: “Both are important, but the emphasis on technology is surely the right way to go.  The greatest threat to the environment in the coming years will come from the emerging economics like China and India. Frankly, the impact they will have will dwarf anything we do here at home.  So I think they are right to be focusing on finding new technologies to tackle the causes of climate change rather than just the symptoms. Politicians generally are guilty of focusing on the easy answers – those that seem like they will help while imposing extra burdens and regulations on businesses, large and small.  Finding new ways of doing things by developing new technologies is the only sustainable way to deal with the problem.”

Editor's Comment: "Like with Darfur, DC deserves some credit for putting an issue like climate change on the agenda but his policy ideas are 'so 1997'.  The developing world is not going to sign up to the growth-inhibiting approach of Kyoto although they are the big polluters of tomorrow.  The developed world's export of industrial activity to the likes of India and China provides a principal way in which developed countries will meet their own Kyoto targets.  Whilst Blair is moving away from Kyoto's approach, David Cameron appears to be embracing it in straitjacket form with his Carbon Audit Office.  Without getting the developing world to sign  up to Kyoto II such an approach amounts to unilateral economic disarmament.  I do believe that Climate Change is a real danger but Kyoto hardly begins to stop that change and is economically costly.  The Copenhagen Consensus shows that there are better ways of spending economic growth.  DD is right to look to technology as the surest route to a green future.  The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development - with some added government-led incentivisation of technological development and adoption - would amount to a worthy 'blue environmentalism'."

For more background see Iain Murray's Platform article.

Q9: Bush or Kerry?

"Would you have voted for George W Bush or John Kerry in last year’s American Presidential election?"

David Cameron: “It’s up to the American people to choose their President; it’s up to the British Prime Minister - and the Leader of the Opposition - to work effectively with whoever they choose in order to maintain the special relationship between our two countries.”

David Davis: “My vote would have been for President Bush. In fact, maintaining good relations with America would be one of my top priorities in foreign policy. A lot of people mock the President and our relations with America generally, but the fact is that we rely on America for intelligence support and technology. I am a firm supporter of the Anglo-American relationship. President Bush has also done a lot of good work at home – notably by promoting a conservatism that is ‘good for me and good for my neighbour’. We can learn a lot from him and his electoral success. He may be the ultimate un-spun politician, but I think that’s what people are looking for in today’s political world.”

Editor's Comment: "I recently wrote about George W Bush's faults and so I'm not a blind admirer of America's 43rd President. I've also written a recently lengthy critique of his record on compassionate conservatism (Download Whatever_happened_to_compassionate_conservatism.pdf ).  But DD gives the better answer here for me.  Kerry is a flip-flopper on vital issues.  His position on the Iraq war changed a number of times before last November's US election and a number of times since.  He has protectionist tendencies and was an opponent of tax relief.  I like DD's straight answer and so he gets another win on the David-O-Meter."

The swing on the David-O-Meter reflects each individual question - it is not an overall assessment.

A commercial break

Normal Q&A service will be resumed from 6pm but I hope you might like to take this opportunity to keep conservativehome.com online.  Even a few pounds will help!  All major debit and switch cards are accepted through the PayPal link below...

I'll also blog DD's Newsnight appearance for the owls amongst you.  I understand that DC has now accepted the Paxo Challenge so the empty chair campaign is over almost as soon as it began.

You might also like to take part in a discussion about increasing the number of female Tory MPs on the Platform Blog.  The discussion - started by Brooks Newmark MP - has been lively and Brooks has responded to it.

Q8: Arms sales to undemocratic and repressive regimes

"Britain currently sells arms to undemocratic and repressive regimes. Would you stop this trade?"

David Cameron: “We need a clear set of rules about those countries we’re prepared to sell arms to, but countries have a right to self-defence, and we cannot expect smaller countries to manufacture every single piece of defence equipment themselves.”

David Davis: “If regimes are patently undemocratic and repressive, then yes. I believe each case must be judged on its merits, but the human rights background of the country in question must be one of the primary considerations.”

Editor's Comment: "Both of these answers are disappointing because they're unbankable.  DD's answer could have been written by Sir Humphrey Appleby!  I've always thought that arms sales to despotic regimes represent the least acceptable face of capitalism.  Opposition to selling weaponry to countries that could use them against their own citizens, or could pass them to enemies of the democratic world, has never been ethical but in the post 9/11 world it strikes me as incredibly foolish."

Q7: Genocide in Darfur

"Up to 400,000 people have died in the Darfur region of Sudan over the last eighteen months. What specifically should Britain and the international community have done for the people of Darfur that has not been done?"

David Cameron: “We should have pressed for the situation to have been described as genocide by the UN, a decision which would have prompted a series of interventions.“

David Davis: ”Those 400,000 people have died while the rest of the world has been busy debating whether it was genocide or not. So the first thing we, the international community, can do is make it quite clear that what we’ve seen in Sudan is state-sponsored genocide. That enables us to consider war trials for those responsible.  The UN has been feeble, while the African Union troops deployed to keep the peace are proving to be ineffective, despite their efforts, because there are too few of them. Their number should be increased. The international community should ask NATO to enforce a no-fly zone in the region to stop the Government and militias using aerial bombardment against their victims, and we should seriously consider imposing sanctions on oil and arms against the Sudanese Government.  Britain has particular responsibilities in Africa because of our influence through the Commonwealth. It is in Britain’s own interests – as well as those of the people of Darfur and other poverty-stricken regions – to promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world.”

Editor's Comment: "This response from David Cameron is the poorest of any in this questionnaire.  On a number of occasions I've welcomed his commitment to Darfur (see here and more recently here, for example).  At his campaign launch he declared: "And when the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can't just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.  We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer."   DC's response to this question suggests that the people of Darfur may get passion but they won't get any action.  'Pressing' the UN is a very inadequate response to what is happening in Darfur.  The UN is an institution-of-convenience which poseur multilateralists often hide behind as an excuse for inaction.  Two of the UN's permanent security council members will never vote for the situation to be identified as genocide.  One, China, has extensive oil interests in Sudan.  Another, Russia, is selling military hardware to Khartoum.  It's better not to promise action than to promise action and do nothing.   DD is right to describe the UN response as "feeble".  I hope he doesn't mean the UN when he talks of the "international community".  We need a coalition of willing democracies to act for the people of Darfur in the ways DD describes.  After Rwanda the world said "never again".  Those words didn't mean a thing."   

Q6: A 'Right-To-Die'

"With the Assisted Dying Bill, Lord Joffe is currently attempting to introduce Britain's first right to die legislation. Would you support such legislation if it included satisfactory requirements?"

David Cameron: “No.”

David Davis: “No. I do not believe that sufficient safeguards could be built into the system to avoid the possibility that patients may have changed their mind or may feel they could be a burden on their family and therefore believe they should die. This is a fraught area of moral and legal complexity but I do not believe people have a right to die.”

Editor's Comment: "Reassuring answers from both contenders.  For all the reasons stated in Rowan Williams' recent piece - a right-to-die quickly becomes a duty-to-die for many very disabled, very sick and other vulnerable people.  The way to resist creeping euthanasia is to support palliative care and the hospice movement."

Q5: Embryonic stem cell research

The cartoon is taken from the Indianapolis Star.

"Many people believe that embryonic stem cell research could produce major medical breakthroughs. Others believe that it destroys nascent human life. What is your position?"

David Cameron: “I don’t believe we should create life in order for it to be experimented on, but I support stem cell research because of its potential to contribute to breakthroughs in treating medical conditions (something I feel passionately about as the father of a severely disabled child). I think that adult cells should be used wherever possible.”

David Davis: “This is a very difficult area where I believe politicians should be informed and guided by both the scientific community and the faiths. It is also an area which is moving quickly as there are already some reports which suggest that embryonic stem cell research may not be required in the future and stem cells can be fully utilised from other sources. This is something I would strongly favour as from a personal moral perspective I am very uncomfortable with allowing embryonic stem cell research. Until this is achievable however I believe whether to allow such research should be an area for a free vote in parliament so all MPs can exercise their conscience. I believe provided research is strictly controlled and subject to frequent review research should for the time being be permitted in order to help cure some of the worst illnesses that can affect people.”

Editor's Comment: "Another very slight win for DC.  David Cameron appears to be taking the compromise George W Bush line that embryonic stem cell research should only be permitted on existing lines.  DD is clearly concerned about the destruction of embryonic human life for the benefit of others but appears, on balance, to be in favour of it - if "strictly controlled" and with "frequent review research".  I believe that we should abide by the Nuremburg Code which has governed medical research since the Nazis used gypsies, homosexuals and people with mental illnesses in medical experiments.  That law states: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.""  Given that the embryo - a human life if given the right environment will become a human like those of us blogging on this site - cannot give that consent it should not be subject to experimentation.  In any case - the choice between cures and research is a false one.  As both contenders suggest - adult stem cell research is producing many medical advances without destroying human life in the process."

Q4: Marriage and the family

"Do you believe that tax-payers' money should be used to support voluntary and faith-based organisations that are helping couples to build healthy and stable marriages?"

David Cameron: “Yes.”

David Davis: “I believe that voluntary sector and faith-based organisations are often the best at delivering the services people need. The volunteers and faith members are rightly focused on the communities they want to serve rather than focused on meeting targets and diktats from Whitehall. I think that funds should therefore be allocated to voluntary and faith-based organisations as part of our drive to increase efficiency in the delivery of services. I believe also that we should adopt a lighter touch to regulation so that volunteers and faith groups can get on with the job.  For example at the last General Election we committed ourselves to encouraging wider rights of supply in education so that more charitable and faith-based schools could be set up. This is a policy that has worked with stunning success in Sweden and I want to take the best of what works in the world and implement it here in the UK.”

Editor's Comment: "I'll put this down as a very slight DC win.  DC answered the question with a clear 'yes' and DD gave a longish answer without clearly saying that he does support using voluntary/faith-based groups to deliver healthy marriages support services (although I think that the clear implication is that he does).  Both candidates have previously made it clear that they support tax relief for married couples.  I'm glad to see that they're both open to other ways of supporting the still popular aspiration to marry.  Broken families and drug addiction are one of the two main cultural forces that explain the persistence of poverty in this time of great wealth and welfare.  Family policy must be at the heart of any compassionate conservatism and both candidates appear ready to deliver this.  As I said with regard to the candidates' answers on Question Time last week - DC has shown a little more awareness of the need to produce a broad pro-family policy."